Does anyone here refuse to post process?

[The Mad Rapper]

Joking, right?

There's two schools of thought here, the first is that if you didn't get it right in the first place, then tough - you suck. The second is that PP is really no different from the 'dodge and burn' techniques employed when developing film prints.

I tend to veer towards the latter.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

Oh, you were suggesting the former in your first post, so I guess you were joking.

 

[Adrianr]

A tripod or a timer are not aids as they have no impact on the exposure and they do not alter the image in any way or form. Its no different to someone resting their camera on a wall or on the ground or indeed any other surface.

Your really taking the argument to the extreme. With your line of thining you might aswell call your hand an "aid" as its holding the camera....

Tripods are aids, and of course they alter the image (Or why would we use them?). You are basically valuing photoshop below other tips and techniques photographers use to create images.. Which is fine if you admit that is what you're doing (Though I still think your premise for holding it in such low regard is flawed in many ways).

Photographers don't shoot unaided, there is always something. Photoshop is another aid. How much value you place on that aid is upto you, but you can't devalue anothers work because of it.

I did ask you to clarify earlier in this topic and received no such response. Perhaps if you could do this it would be easier to find where you are coming from? I don't believe for a second the only good photographers are those who shoot completely unaided (Whatever that even means?).

 

[photoshop]

Tripods are aids, and of course they alter the image (Or why would we use them?). You are basically valuing photoshop below other tips and techniques photographers use to create images.. Which is fine if you admit that is what you're doing (Though I still think your premise for holding it in such low regard is flawed in many ways).

Photographers don't shoot unaided, there is always something. Photoshop is another aid. How much value you place on that aid is upto you, but you can't devalue anothers work because of it.

I did ask you to clarify earlier in this topic and received no such response. Perhaps if you could do this it would be easier to find where you are coming from? I don't believe for a second the only good photographers are those who shoot completely unaided (Whatever that even means?).

How does a tripod alter an image?

The reason you use a tripod is to keep the camera stationary. Like i said, this is no different to me resting my camera on a wall. It has no bearing on the image being taken.

Is my hand an aid then also because its holding the camera for me because thats what your saying?

As for your last point about photographers, well, i think you've misread me. I never said that only bad photographers use PP and tools. I said in my opinion great photographers are those that can capture what they want when taking the shot without having to resort to touching it up and PP.

Wheres the skill if you can do things later in photoshop? Isnt that more graphic design rather than photography?

Producing great pictures does not even require you to be competant with a camera these days aslong as your a wizzkid in photoshop. I think that is the truth. As long as you have great skills of PP images you'll be fine.

Where is the skill of photography in that?

Does being able to add, subtract and manupilate your images in Photoshop make you a great photographer?

 

[Rojin]

How does a tripod alter an image?

The reason you use a tripod is to keep the camera stationary. Like i said, this is no different to me resting my camera on a wall. It has no bearing on the image being taken.

Is my hand an aid then also because its holding the camera for me because thats what your saying?

As for your last point about photographers, well, i think you've misread me. I never said that only bad photographers use PP and tools. I said in my opinion great photographers are those that can capture what they want when taking the shot without having to resort to touching it up and PP.

Wheres the skill if you can do things later in photoshop? Isnt that more graphic design rather than photography?

Producing great pictures does not even require you to be competant with a camera these days aslong as your a wizzkid in photoshop. I think that is the truth. As long as you have great skills of PP images you'll be fine.

Where is the skill of photography in that?

Does being able to add, subtract and manupilate your images in Photoshop make you a great photographer?

You're stood in a middle of a field with no natural support available, or the middle of a town square... naturally you use a tripod to capture the shot requiring the steady platform. Hence you capture an image impossible without the "aid" of said tripod. It is taking it a little far but it is still an aid to photography, which in your stated view renders the photo a cheat

Photoshop isn't all about massive manipulation of an image. The most radical things I do is a black and white conversion with a bit of curves adjustment...

 

[martinturner]

How about you show us some of these 'great' photographers who do not process?

 

[james.miller]

How about you show us some of these 'great' photographers who do not process?

ive already asked that lol

 

[Adrianr]

How does a tripod alter an image?

The reason you use a tripod is to keep the camera stationary. Like i said, this is no different to me resting my camera on a wall. It has no bearing on the image being taken.

Is my hand an aid then also because its holding the camera for me because thats what your saying?

As for your last point about photographers, well, i think you've misread me. I never said that only bad photographers use PP and tools. I said in my opinion great photographers are those that can capture what they want when taking the shot without having to resort to touching it up and PP.

Wheres the skill if you can do things later in photoshop? Isnt that more graphic design rather than photography?

Producing great pictures does not even require you to be competant with a camera these days aslong as your a wizzkid in photoshop. I think that is the truth. As long as you have great skills of PP images you'll be fine.

Where is the skill of photography in that?

Does being able to add, subtract and manupilate your images in Photoshop make you a great photographer?

It alters an image by making an otherwise blury photo a sharp one. If there was always a convinient wall nearby we wouldn't need tripods. Fact is they exist for a reason. Your hand might be an aid, you tell me? It is your definition of the word in photographic context I'm trying to ascertain.

I don't believe I've misread you, I'm trying to understand what you class as an aid. To quote,

"a good photographer does not need "aids" (tools as you call them here) or post processing."

To formulate such a statement one can only assume you know of these 'good' photographers shooting without anything you consider to be an aid. Otherwise you couldn't possibly know whether a good photographer needs aids/tools or not. Do you not agree?

Nowadays we have 'Retouchers', not so long ago we had 'Printers' (Same people, just doing it in a darkroom instead). They could blow out your backgrounds to brilliant white, dodge out the eye detail, burn in the cheekbones, bring the clouds back. They weren't there to make bad photos good, they made good photos great. You still can't polish a turd in Photoshop, the really great work is a combination of both. And likely all the great work from 'great' photographers you've ever seen has had a retoucher/printer work his magic on it at some stage.

I get the feeling you hold Photoshop in very low regard. Have you used it in depth before?

 

[martinturner]

........ You still can't polish a turd in Photoshop, ...

Seriously, give me a turd and I will make it sparkle, lol!

 

[Kei]

Even though i am happy to use PP on my digital images, i do not tend to step beyond the realms of the available dark room processes. I dislike overuse of photoshop, once you step beyond what was possible in a darkroom you have left photography behind and entered digital imaging and the end result will be an image not a photograph. This doesn't mean i hate OTT post-processing, as it can prove to be very effective making an otherwise bland image impressive. Photoshop also requires a lot of skill to use properly, in the same way as shooting slide film or developing negatives. What is annoying is how the great photographs that were shot on slide film didn't have or need any PP as they were taken correctly. Digital then comes along and allows people to just point and shoot with minimal photographic skill and then spruce it up afterwards on the computer.

I prefer shooting with transparency film which requires the photographer to get it right when taken. PP is simply not possible unless you scan it, which defeats the point. This is probably why so few people bother with slides. (apart from cost and storage) I find shooting with film far more rewarding compared to digital, as it is more of a challenge. The negative films have more latitude for exposure error which make them easier to work with, but no less rewarding as you have to work in the darkroom to save them. (in a similar way to using photoshop to "develop" a raw file)

I don't see photographic aids, such as tripods and light-meters to be a problem as it had been normal practice for over 40 years, suggesting otherwise is daft. You want unaided photography, make yourself a pin-hole camera and shoot directly onto sheets of 10x8" B+W paper. (You can even count the exposure in seconds and operate the shutter without electric/mechanical aid too)

(Btw, i do use photoshop and enjoy it too, and i do not give others stick about it unless it is poorly done.)

 

[sid]

I agree with Kei, I shoot mainly with film and only scan it in as a digital contact sheet and posting online. Not a fan of excessive PP at all. In fact if you can tell its been PP'ed at all then its too much imo

sid

 

[photoshop]

You're stood in a middle of a field with no natural support available, or the middle of a town square... naturally you use a tripod to capture the shot requiring the steady platform. Hence you capture an image impossible without the "aid" of said tripod. It is taking it a little far but it is still an aid to photography, which in your stated view renders the photo a cheat

It is not an aid because it has no bearing on the exposure. Its prime function is to keep the camera steady for the shot. This is no different to me holding it like i said on a wall or any other solid surface.

I think you guys are really desperate now to pick a tripod as an aid. To me an aid is something which has a bearing on the exposure (like a filter).

How about you show us some of these 'great' photographers who do not process?

When did i say i knew of any?
I said in my opinion a great photographer is one that does not rely on aids and one that can capture whats before him using his skill. That is my opinion and i am going to stick by it.

Being able to use Apperture Priority mode does not make you a photographer as the camera is doing half of it for you. Wheres the skill in that?
Skill is when you use Manual mode and meter yourself.

ive already asked that lol

As above.

Photography is photography. Digital imaging however, is not!

 

[Adrianr]

Skill is when you use Manual mode and meter yourself.

Meter by eye I presume?

If the sentance above sums up your opinion on the matter, you are falling drastically short in the photographic process. Where you have stopped, you still only have an image exposed onto film or sensor in the camera.

You still have to develop the negative (Or RAW) - That requires skill.

You still have to print the negative (Or TIFF) - That requires skill.

The skill of a photographer does not stop straight after you press the shutter button.

So now we've covered what an aid is before you take the photo, what would you consider an aid after you take the photo? Unless you're happy just viewing negatives/slides on a lightbox?

 

[Irish_Tom]

Anyone who has ever processed film will know that there is just as much skill needed after the photograph has been taken, as is needed before hand. I believe the same is true for digital. However, because it's easier to process in Lightroom rather than in a darkroom, it's seen as 'cheating' or as a way of compensating for poor technique.

Anyone who refuses to process their images must be an elitist, pretentious tit and probably not a particularly good photographer. I say this because they must not have a complete understanding of the medium. All of the greatest photographers in history will have processed their photos to some degree either film or digital. What makes this theoretical character so much 'better' than any of them, that they don't have to touch their photos after they have been taken?

Panzer

 

[martinturner]

...

You suggested that a 'great' photographer is someone who does not require any tools/aids/pp? Its hard to share the same opinion when I don't know of a single 'great' photographer who does not use tools/aids/pp? The only time I ever hear that is from those who cannot process very well, so out comes the purist argument rather than doing the same as everyone else and learning to process in a similar fashion to the learning curve they followed to learn how to use the camera.

I have many photography friends who I would consider 'great' photographers; for me you lessen their ability with such remarks. We are in the day and age of digital photography. Explain to me the purpose of shooting in RAW?

You are using an electronic bit of equipment which has lots of buttons and settings to capture a scene? When has a digital camera 'ever' captured optically what your eyes have seen? How is it less skilled to use two bits of electronic equipment rather than the one; you still have to be skilled enough to use either?

I agree with you that a scene should be represented up to a point as best it can in camera. I think a great photographer will be somone who gets the exposure right for example. But you are living in the past if you consider processing not to be a fundamental part of photography.

I apologise, I thought your opinion was based on something evidential, hence why I asked for examples. Clearly its just your opinion, which is fair enough. Anyway, I am not here to get into an argument; we just have completely contrasting opinions.

 

[photoshop]

I apologise, I thought your opinion was based on something evidential, hence why I asked for examples. Clearly its just your opinion, which is fair enough. Anyway, I am not here to get into an argument; we just have completely contrasting opinions.

This.
It is entirely my opinion and my belief regarding photography and photographers.

I just feel that more and more people class touching up images and using photoshop to improve their photographs to make them more pleasing. This to me is false as this then becomes digital imaging. I see it all the time where people take a half baked photograph and then try to correct in later in photoshop.

For me, a photographer should try to capture what is before him using technique, skill and knowledge of photography - this comes down to how well he/she knows the camera and can use it to do justice to the exposure. A good photographer should be able to use the correct settings in the first place without having to resort to photoshop or PP to correct them alter (such as white balance, focus etc etc).

 

[photoshop]

So now we've covered what an aid is before you take the photo, what would you consider an aid after you take the photo?

Dwelling into the realms of digital imaging is what i consider to be an aid. This then has more to do with how good you are at image manipulation and how good you are at using software packages. These days, a photographers work is done back in the studio in packages such as PS - is this really photography?
- (isnt this digital imaging?)

 

[martinturner]

Why do camera's shoot RAW then if post processing is not a fundamental part of digital photography?
What do you have to do to a RAW file before you can view it or print it?

 

[Adrianr]

Dwelling into the realms of digital imaging is what i consider to be an aid. This then has more to do with how good you are at image manipulation and how good you are at using software packages. These days, a photographers work is done back in the studio in packages such as PS - is this really photography?
- (isnt this digital imaging?)

Well that's quite a broad definition you have there. It's technically digital imaging the moment you take the photograph with a digital camera. What are we allowed to do with these photographs after we've taken them? Directly print them as RAWs with no intervention? Which printer shall we use? Which paper? They'll all produce slightly different prints. Which is more 'photographic'?

In the film days were good photographers seperated by how good they were at printing? Or developing?

I fear i'l never be able to open your mind on the matter as you seem to be purely a man of the digital age. If you've had no experience of film, developing and printing, different film types or even anything outside of a DSLR your facts with which to form your opinion are so woefully narrow you would require more education on the subject than simply me questioning you

I think a good start wold be to think of photographers as image makers, not just image takers.

 

[photoshop]

What do you have to do to a RAW file before you can view it or print it?

Well if the photographer got the exposure right in the first place then there wount be anything to do - just convert the RAW file to the format you want and your done.

What are we allowed to do with these photographs after we've taken them?

As above.

I'll give you an example of the point im making:

A good pianoist/drummer/bass player/violinist knows how to play the instrument and will achieve what he/she wants with his/her knowledge and experience.
The flipside of this is that someone who cant play the instruments as well will resort to studio techniques using software packages to achieve the same affect (or near as).